|
The president: Don't vote for that Democrat because ... he's a Democrat!
By Brendan Nyhan
[First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]
The battle to define Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and congressional Democrats as "obstructionists" is reaching new lows.
The Dallas Morning News reported that on Thursday, President Bush accused Texas Democratic Senate nominee Ron Kirk of being an "obstructionist," even as he praised Kirk as a person:
"I know Ron Kirk. Like Ron Kirk. He's a nice fellow. He's not the right man for the United States Senate, as far as I'm concerned. I need a man up here in the Senate that's going to help me get an agenda done. I don't need an obstructionist. I need a positive influence. And John's [John Cornyn, the Republican candidate] an independent thinker, but he's a man who, I'm confident, working together, will help Texas."
Bush is now presumptively defining Democrats as obstructionists (and nonindependent thinkers) simply for being members of their party. Kirk has not cast a single vote in the Senate -- indeed, he has repeatedly expressed his desire to work with the president. But Bush was undeterred:
"When asked whether he thought Mr. Kirk could work with him, the president replied: 'Oh, I don't.'"
"Mr. Bush added: 'It's going to be hard for him to be able to make that claim when his first vote is to vote for the kind of committee chairmen that have been resisting everything I've been trying to get done.'"
As Clay Robison wrote in the Houston Chronicle, Cornyn has made Daschle the "central issue" of his race against Kirk. And the GOP's candidate for lieutenant governor in Texas is now even attacking Daschle, although the majority leader has no direct relevance to state affairs.
Bush and the GOP have every right to try to nationalize the election and turn every race into a referendum on the Democrats. And it's true that Democratic Senate candidates will vote for their party to control the Senate, which has implications for Bush's agenda. But framing every Democrat as obstructionist without regard to their beliefs or temperament is simply not rational. It's the reductio ad absurdum of negative political campaigning. Instead of attacking a candidate because of a disagreement on the issues -- or even a single issue -- Bush's rationale is simply, Don't vote for him because he disagrees with me. It's an argument designed to capitalize on the president's high approval ratings -- and one that that implicitly undermines the legitimacy of democratic opposition.
[This post was available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers on Salon.com. If you're not already a subscriber, we hope you'll consider signing up through our affiliate link for immediate access to our newest work, as well as all the other good stuff on Salon Premium.]
5/10/2002 06:35:31 PM EST |
A journalism dean credits the Heritage Foundation for being what it's frequently not: Rigorous, evenhanded and scholarly.
By Brendan Nyhan
[First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]
In his latest column, the Washington Post's David Broder extols the virtues of the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, two of the nation's most powerful and influential think tanks, on their 25th anniversaries. He writes that their "usefulness in Washington politics stems from their intellectual honesty and their willingness to question conventional wisdom, even when their friends are in power."
But his paean fails to acknowledge how ideology and public relations concerns can dictate -- and distort -- much of Heritage's work. What about the foundation's methods, which are more than just an intellectually honest questioning of the "conventional wisdom"? As John Judis describes in his book "The Paradox of American Democracy," the foundation is dedicated to producing good conservative P.R., not rigorous scholarship. Founder Edward Fuelner wanted a "quick response capability" and article-length pieces rather than dense scholarship. Some years ago, Burton Pines, a Heritage vice president, said this of the think tank's mission: "We're not here to be some kind of Ph.D. committee giving equal time. Our role is to provide conservative public-policy makers with arguments to bolster our side."
Of course, there is nothing wrong with this in general, and Broder surely understands how Heritage operates. However, it should be pointed out that the many position papers and Op-Eds it pumps out are often less than rigorous (or worse).
Consider the flaws in some recent Heritage work. Last year, the foundation's Center for Data Analysis launched an attack on a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) about income inequality and tax policy. CBPP responded by taking Heritage's charges apart in embarrassing detail. Most notably, Heritage blatantly misstated the source of CBPP's data, which was clearly cited in the original report, in an attempt to cast doubt on it. This was either a massive error or a troubling attempt at misdirection.
The CBPP authors wrote that their study "relies primarily on the latest data available from the Internal Revenue Service on income and income tax trends." Heritage's rejoinder: "Shapiro and Friedman badly misuse data to create a statistical mirage of growing income inequality in America from 1992 to 1998. The Census Bureau warns researchers not to do this because of major survey changes in 1994." However, these changes were made in the Current Population Survey carried out by the Census Bureau, not the IRS data used by CBPP.
Or consider the March 28 Washington Times Op-Ed by Heritage's Daniel Mitchell praising Russia's flat tax, which Jonathan Chait rightfully excoriated in the New Republic Online. (As the McKenna senior fellow in political economy, Mitchell is blessed with the imprimatur of the institution and given assistance in placing Op-Eds, securing radio interviews, etc.) In his piece, he argues that the fact that Russia has seen tax revenues rise "proves the class-warfare artists in Washington completely wrong when they argue that tax revenues would fall and the rich would get a big tax cut if America adopted such a system. The Russian experience confirms -- again -- that tax revenues rise under a flat tax."
Of course, "intellectual honesty" would require Mitchell to at least acknowledge that he's drawing a conclusion with little evidence to support it. Russia's previous tax system was corrupt; President Vladimir Putin instituted a flat tax as part of a reform effort that also included toughened enforcement. As Chait says, "Any system that involved a strong central government rationalizing and enforcing tax laws would be more efficient than the old Russian system." Moreover, the situation in the United States is obviously almost totally different, yet Mitchell pretends as if Russia's experience provides a useful comparison.
Despite this slipshod work, Broder's overwrought praise continues. He calls the think tanks "models of healthy democratic discourse at a time when too much of the policy debate here takes the form of 'Crossfire'-style exchanges of insults."
While Heritage generally doesn't put out highly aggressive jargon, its experts employ public relations tactics that often polarize public debate. Mitchell in particular appears to specialize in highly charged metaphors equating tax policy with civil rights.
In an Op-Ed in the Washington Times this week, Mitchell condemns the Supreme Court's infamous 1857 decision in the Dred Scott case (which ruled that slaves who escaped to free states were still considered the property of their previous owners) and then attempts to connect the case with a proposed change in corporate tax policy, writing that "some U.S. companies soon may be treated in a similar manner" to slaves under Dred Scott due to a bill in Congress that would prevent U.S. corporations from re-chartering in countries with "better tax laws," such as Bermuda. "The politicians who support this are acting as if these companies belong to the government," he writes. Does Broder actually believe that comparing corporations, legal entities chartered by the government, to human beings owned as slaves is somehow superior to "'Crossfire'-style exchanges"?
Last year, in an interview with the New Republic's Anand Giridharadas, Mitchell similarly compared tax evasion with the civil rights movement, saying that he could not condemn a family that "deposits their assets offshore in the face of a confiscatory tax like the death tax, any more than I would condemn Rosa Parks for sitting in the front of that bus."
Obviously, Mitchell feels passionately about these issues, and it is his job to serve a strong advocate for them. But this shouldn't be what passes for intellectual honesty and healthy democratic debate in Washington. Broder should expect more.
[This post was available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers on Salon.com. If you're not already a subscriber, we hope you'll consider signing up through our affiliate link for immediate access to our newest work, as well as all the other good stuff on Salon Premium.]
5/9/2002 09:02:53 PM EST |
Hanson's armchair psychoanalysis (5/8)
By Ben Fritz
One of the most frequently used tactics of the manipulative rhetoric we track is to take a political issue with strong emotional resonance and use it to justify a totally separate and irrelevant agenda. The attacks of September 11 provided one such occasion, as pundits and politicians used the threat of terrorism to justify everything from ending immigration to attacking former President Clinton's personal misconduct. Unsurprisingly, this tactic has come up again in the debate over the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Victor Davis Hanson launched one of the most aggressive examples in yesterday's National Review Online. The piece is replete with ad hoc psychologizing about the reasons why some Westerners support the Palestinian cause, from pandering to Muslims to fear of terrorism. The jargon really starts flowing near the end, however, as Hanson launches a broadside against liberals, saying their support for the Palestinians is based on a "rather smug idealization of the disadvantaged." In fact, that's just the beginning of the groundless assumptions and jargon:
Partly Marxist, partly ignorant, and mostly naive, these insufferable and affluent European and American leftists see their solidarity with Palestinians as inseparable from their own embarrassed personas.
These are very broad charges against liberal supporters of the Palestinians justified by nothing more than their view of the Israel-Palestine situation. Note how the jargon works both ways: Hanson tries to delegitimize support for Palestinians by associating it with Marxism and embarrassed, affluent Westerners, while also delegitimizing liberals in general by saying their support for Palestinians stems from ignorance and naivete. Both are irrational associations unsupported by logical reasoning.
The only possible way to justify this, of course, is to totally ignore all legitimate reasons people might have for supporting the Palestinian cause. Hanson claims to do this in the beginning of his piece, in a series of quick dismissals of the pro-Palestinian argument. He then segues into amateur psychology with the phrase, "what then really is at the heart of the world's hatred against the Israelis?" (emphasis his) Such phrasing is a key indicator of manipulative rhetoric to come, as the pundit assumes that a weak argument implies a more sinister motivation lurking in the shadows.
If Hanson wants to make his case for Israel, he should do so without assuming motivations and making cheap, jargon-based associations. Instead, he turns a piece supposedly about the Middle East crisis into a broadside against liberalism heavy on the pseudo-psychology and light on reason.
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
5/8/2002 03:32:35 PM EST |
Liberal name-callers have a new favorite catchphrase: The "Enron conservative"
By Bryan Keefer
[First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]
Though the Enron controversy has largely faded from the front pages, some liberal activists are doing their best to exploit the scandal in a novel way. Hoping to leverage the negative associations carried by the company's name -- corporate greed, questionable political favors, disappearing retirement savings for workers -- activists have coined the term "Enron conservatives" in an effort to discredit conservative policies. Though this phrase is just the latest in a long line of Enron-related rhetoric, it is especially notable because it is being so aggressively marketed as a potential campaign 2002 slogan by a single individual: Robert Borosage of the Campaign for America's Future (CAF).
Campaign for America's Future is an influential liberal interest group that counts among its founders a number of prominent liberals, including AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich, Jesse Jackson and economist James K. Galbraith. (Disclosure: Andrew Stern, president of SEIU, is also a founding member of CAF; I am currently employed as a researcher for SEIU.) Its latest conference featured a similar lineup of heavy hitters, including House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. When Borosage speaks, he has the ear of the liberal establishment.
Borosage has a history of pushing cheap associations between the Enron scandal and conservative policies. In a Jan. 30 article, he suggested that "the Republican House passed an Enron stimulus package," and he claimed that President Bush's energy package was an "Enron energy plan." The idea, as Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri put it, is that Enron is a shorthand way of suggesting that Bush "cooks the books, uses rosy economic scenarios and doesn't worry enough about the human side of the ledger ... It was so hard to explain it before. Now you can explain it."
"Enron conservatives," the latest variation on the Enron theme, was coined in early January by Salon columnist Arianna Huffington. Huffington suggested that "during his run for the White House, Bush fought long and hard to convince us that he was a new breed of conservative -- a compassionate conservative. But recent events make clear that he is actually the standard bearer of a far more coldhearted breed. Call them the Enron conservatives." Huffington continued with an explicit definition of this new bit of jargon: "Enron conservatives are people who use political money and connections as levers to free themselves of all accountability to laws, regulations and responsibility -- even to their own employees. Simply put, they are people who consistently, shamelessly and aggressively put their self-interest above the public interest." The juxtaposition of "compassionate conservative" and "Enron conservative" is rhetorical counterspin at its finest, breaking the association between conservatives and "compassion" and replacing it with the far more sinister "Enron."
Borosage used the new slogan in an article titled "Enron Conservatives" published in the Feb. 4 issue of the Nation. He picks up right where Huffington left off: "It is Enron's rise that lays bare the hypocrisy of modern conservatives -- call them Enron conservatives. Enron conservatives fly the flag of free markets but actually use political and financial clout to free themselves from accountability, rig the market and then use their position to ravage consumers, investors and employees. These are not the small-is-beautiful compassionate conservatives George Bush advertised in the election campaign ... Enron conservatives make the rules to benefit themselves."
He continues with a series of sound bites that, taken together, read like political talking points: "Enron conservatives prefer plunder to production," "Enron conservatives in Congress passed the President's tax cut," "The leading Enron conservative is W. himself," "Enron conservatives don't violate the rules; they change the rules to suit themselves" and "Enron conservatives don't see why corporate lawlessness should get in the way of government largesse." Clearly, he intends the catchphrase as a way of defining conservatives and attacking the policies they favor.
Borosage has publicized the term with zeal. In a March debate sponsored by the American Prospect, he repeated part of his Nation article almost word for word, claiming that "[t]he adherents to this ideology, let us call them Enron conservatives, are different than traditional Tory conservatives who believe in flag and family. They are different than compassionate conservatives who care about community or charity." Once again, Borosage is attempting to break the associations between conservatives and positive values such as "family" and "community." In his closing remarks, he further complained that "the Enron conservatives who are flying this banner of free markets are using political clout to create rules to rig the rules so they can profit," and called for "getting rid of the Enron conservatives in office."
With his latest use of the term, Borosage has broadened the rhetorical attack to include issues such as education that are completely unrelated to the Enron scandal. In an April 11 speech (16K PDF) to a conference sponsored by Campaign for America's Future he used the term 13 times. Framing current policy debates as "a choice between progressive reform and Enron conservatism," Borosage presented a number of false dichotomies designed to frame large social issues as "Enron conservatives" vs. liberal policy prescriptions. Asking his listeners to "put the case to the American people," Bosrosage suggested a number of slogans: "Invest in education or let Enron conservatives starve even the reforms they celebrated last year," "Launch a drive for energy independence ... or let Enron conservatives push their Big Oil energy plan," "Make worker rights and environmental protection central to our trade accords or let Enron conservatives foster a global race to the bottom" and "Political reform to get big money out of politics ... or let Enron conservatives continue a politics where private interests dominate our public life."
With the term "Enron conservatives," Borosage is articulating an aggressive liberal public relations strategy for the November elections that is remarkably similar to the one pioneered by Newt Gingrich's political action committee (GOPAC) in the early 1990s. GOPAC focus-tested individual words, then circulated memos advising congressional Republicans on word choice. Recommended words to provide maximum negative contrast included "destroy," "sick," "pathetic," "liberal," "waste," "corruption" and "greed." Positive contrast words included "opportunity," "moral," "courage," "principle," "dream" and "freedom." Many liberals were quick to criticize these tactics when Gingrich used them. Now at least some are openly embracing them.
[This post was available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers on Salon.com. If you're not already a subscriber, we hope you'll consider signing up through our affiliate link for immediate access to our newest work, as well as all the other good stuff on Salon Premium.]
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
5/7/2002 06:56:37 AM EST |
Home | Columns | Posts | Topics | Email list | About | Search
This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.
Comments by YACCS
|